DingDong+Jennifer argued that gays and lesbians should be banned from the workforce and school. They provided us with arguments which stated that homosexuals are known to molest others (of the same sex) in places such as the military and in jail. This obviously is sexual molestation and rape, both of which are crimes. Lauren+Sarah retaliated by saying that doing so (banning gays and lesbians from places) would be total discrimination. They also said that the other side only mentioned the military and jail, not the workforce and school, which are the places the debate was supposed to be focused on.
I think Lauren and Sarah won because of their quite convincing arguments regarding discrimination, which is a very bad thing in my perspective.
My response to the question being being debated is that no, gays and lesbians should not be banned from those places because that would be discrimination. I'd hate to be discriminated and would not do it to someone based on whatever reason.
Scott argued that building schools especially for gays and lesbians is not segregation, but rather a method of helping them fit in. He mentioned that gays are sometimes beaten just because of their sexual orientation and those who are depressed because of all the hate sometimes commit suicide. As a whole, 13% of the total deaths by suicide have been commited by gays. Also, 75% of the abuses received by gays are not reported, which is not a good thing. New York opened its first school just for gays in 2003, and the students there are doing better socially and academically. Jun and Stephanie attacked Scott's arguments by stating that gay schools are not necessary because isolation itself is not necessary. A transgender has even been quoted saying that creating schools especially for gays is segregation. Taxpayers are also against funding schools just for gays because it seems immoral. They also said just have zero tolerance on discrimination instead.
I think Scott won and congratulate him on holding on his own. Personally, my response would be to perhaps building separate schools would benefit the gays, but Scott had his point when he said we should just help them fit in so we'd all get along. Otherwise it'd be like when they had separate facilities for the blacks.
The debate done by YongMin+Jay vs. Peter+Patrick discussed sexual orientation therapy being unethical or not. The pro side was against this theraphy idea because they claimed that homosexuality is not an illness. The environmental influences are being ignored if one judges sexual orientation like this, the pro side went on to say. The con side said that the therapy is for gay affirmation, not a potential method to change one's sexual orientation. They also agreed that homosexuality is not an illness and that fact is accepted.
The pro-side won, in my perspective. Homosexuality is not an illness and gays shouldn't be forced to change their sexual orientation.
I'd say what the pro-side said: homosexuality is not an illness and they should be left alone.
Ashley, Lisa, Sunny, and isaac debated over the topic of whether should priests should be charged with hate crimes for refusing to marry same-sex couples. The pro side said that the priests' job is to marry couples, not to judge their clients' sexual orientation. The con side retaliated by saying that it is the priests' decisions to marry a couple or not. 1/2 the debate was over the definition of a hate crime, both sides representing their respective sources.
I think the pro side once again; priests are supposed to marry couples and not to bring their own views into such an important affair.
I'd say exactly what the pro side said: priests should just do their jobs, simply put.
GAY DEBATE
DingDong+Jennifer argued that gays and lesbians should be banned from the workforce and school. They provided us with arguments which stated that homosexuals are known to molest others (of the same sex) in places such as the military and in jail. This obviously is sexual molestation and rape, both of which are crimes. Lauren+Sarah retaliated by saying that doing so (banning gays and lesbians from places) would be total discrimination. They also said that the other side only mentioned the military and jail, not the workforce and school, which are the places the debate was supposed to be focused on.
I think Lauren and Sarah won because of their quite convincing arguments regarding discrimination, which is a very bad thing in my perspective.
My response to the question being being debated is that no, gays and lesbians should not be banned from those places because that would be discrimination. I'd hate to be discriminated and would not do it to someone based on whatever reason.
Scott argued that building schools especially for gays and lesbians is not segregation, but rather a method of helping them fit in. He mentioned that gays are sometimes beaten just because of their sexual orientation and those who are depressed because of all the hate sometimes commit suicide. As a whole, 13% of the total deaths by suicide have been commited by gays. Also, 75% of the abuses received by gays are not reported, which is not a good thing. New York opened its first school just for gays in 2003, and the students there are doing better socially and academically. Jun and Stephanie attacked Scott's arguments by stating that gay schools are not necessary because isolation itself is not necessary. A transgender has even been quoted saying that creating schools especially for gays is segregation. Taxpayers are also against funding schools just for gays because it seems immoral. They also said just have zero tolerance on discrimination instead.
I think Scott won and congratulate him on holding on his own. Personally, my response would be to perhaps building separate schools would benefit the gays, but Scott had his point when he said we should just help them fit in so we'd all get along. Otherwise it'd be like when they had separate facilities for the blacks.
The debate done by YongMin+Jay vs. Peter+Patrick discussed sexual orientation therapy being unethical or not. The pro side was against this theraphy idea because they claimed that homosexuality is not an illness. The environmental influences are being ignored if one judges sexual orientation like this, the pro side went on to say. The con side said that the therapy is for gay affirmation, not a potential method to change one's sexual orientation. They also agreed that homosexuality is not an illness and that fact is accepted.
The pro-side won, in my perspective. Homosexuality is not an illness and gays shouldn't be forced to change their sexual orientation.
I'd say what the pro-side said: homosexuality is not an illness and they should be left alone.
Ashley, Lisa, Sunny, and isaac debated over the topic of whether should priests should be charged with hate crimes for refusing to marry same-sex couples. The pro side said that the priests' job is to marry couples, not to judge their clients' sexual orientation. The con side retaliated by saying that it is the priests' decisions to marry a couple or not. 1/2 the debate was over the definition of a hate crime, both sides representing their respective sources.
I think the pro side once again; priests are supposed to marry couples and not to bring their own views into such an important affair.
I'd say exactly what the pro side said: priests should just do their jobs, simply put.